Re: Theories of Intent and Ineptitude

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 02:43:48 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:15:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Theories of Intent and Ineptitude
Given that only a tiny amount of research has been done
classifying and analysing even _raw reported_ UFO and occupant
behavior, and that the resulting database contains an unknown
amount of noise, very likely increasing almost asymptotically in
the cases whose strangeness exceed CE2 and CE3, attempts to
class reported behavior as inept or expert are doomed to
founder.
Why?
First of all, assessment of expertise requires a knowledge of
goals. In other words, you can't know if actions are appropriate
or not until you know the intended result. Leaving aside
channelers, contactees, and abductees who claim to have been
told what the intended result is (which is reasonable, since, as
anyone in intelligence knows, sources of intelligence and
_their_ sources can and do lie, for strategic, tactical, or
trivial reasons), it can be said that little or none of the
groundwork required to assess intent has yet been done. That
groundwork includes classification, statistical analysis, and
behavior analysis.
Secondly, even with categories and statistical analysis, there
is wide room for misinterpretation. For instance, is painting a
deck with clear material that doesn't cause any visible change
expert or inept? We know it is expert, because the quality of
the coating does not lie in its color, but in its water
repellency; but would we know that if our observations were made
from a satellite without prior information? Is replacing parts
which are not visibly damaged in a jet engine expert or inept?
If it is following a standard replacement schedule based on
known characteristics of wear, it is expert. Is standing in the
rain expert or inept? It might just be fun. Are the fins on old
cars aerodynamic? No, just aesthetic and symbolic. We make a
serious error if we assume that concepts such as these are not
in the data - in other words if we proceed from the (unstated)
assumption that UFOs are the product of humorless little Nazi
midgets with no art, no sense of humor, whose actions, sliced
out of context, must make sense, and who are driven by some grim
purpose.
It's just not that easy. Blanket pronouncements about the
irrationality of some specific behavior evidenced by reports of
UFOs beg all of the following questions:
1) Are the accounts in question true or false?
2) If false, are they exclusive exemplars of the behavior in
question (in which case that behavior can be discounted)?
3) How would non-humans behave in a specific context? How can we
identify the context?
4) Can non-human goals be extracted from out-of-context slices
of behavior and, if so, how is that to be done reliably?
If we are going to be scientific, we have a long way to go in
answering the above questions before we start claiming higher
level knowledge about the phenomenon.
If nothing else, UFOs raise fascinating questions of
epistemology.
------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, music and UFO research -
UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------